[Georgi Zhukov]

Alright, so there have been many, many pictures of Bush talking on the phone to world leaders and other diplomats...let's dig back in history a bit. Twelve years ago, in the first Gulf War, Bush part One sent high ranking diplomats to security council member countries to swing opinion to the American side. Most of them agreed, and there was an international coalition of 41 countries. Bush part Two (or Bush revisited, whatever you like) talks on the phone, leaving out that personal attention and personal talks, and, theoretically, as a result not very many countries are jumping on board.

Does this really make a difference? Do the other countries, like France, Germany, and so on, really want to feel important by having high ranking American diplomats like Colin Powell or others paying personal visits for face-to-face talks with them? You decide, but I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

[KurtFF8]

i think face to face is good

[Adrien]

The country you must convince will appreciate that you sent somebody, it shows a greater interest.

If you just phone the head of state, it may show you need his support and nothing else.

[CasX]

...but it also gives the chance for mass protest if they have a formal meeting in person.

[Adrien]

Yep, that's true, but generally travelling to a country to convince its leaders supposes that they tend to be on your side, and that mass protests are not a risk.

Now it's sure that phone and secret calls are better if the country tends to be on the other side.

[Proctor]

...but it also gives the chance for mass protest if they have a formal meeting in person.

*cough* John Howard *cough cough*

[CasX]

John Howard got wasted when he came here. Not only does most of Australia hate him, but most of New Zealand too